ArticleCureus2024
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Healthcare Workers: A Phenomenological Study of Skepticism.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleDespite the prioritizing the healthcare workers (HCWs) for COVID-19 in a systematized manner the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy was observed in them. HCWs are presumed to be pre-emptive in up-taking the vaccine due to their closest association and having reasonable background information. Hence, we intended to explore and investigate the phenomenology of skepticism and hesitancy toward the COVID-19 vaccine among HCWs.
methodA sequential explanatory mixed methods study design incorporating a baseline cross-sectional survey followed by qualitative and semiquantitative text-mining approach was adopted in a tertiary care center in Madhya Pradesh, India. Six hundred seventy-nine HCWs for quantitative data and 30 HCWs for qualitative interviews were surveyed. After determining the quantum and baseline traits of hesitant HCWs, 30 participants were purposively selected for in-depth qualitative analysis based on grounded theory using a framework approach and consolidated from the psychological and philosophical plane of skepticism. This was complemented by a semiquantitative text-mining approach using mono/bigram analysis and network plotting.
resultsApproximately one-fifth of participants (18%,122 out of 679) were initially, and one-tenth of initially hesitant (10 out of 122) were terminally hesitant. Hesitant and non-hesitant participants were similar except for comorbidity status. Five themes emerged namely individual, vaccine-related, social, system, and contextual after thematic consolidation. Words/phrases indicating individualistic desire to knowing more, internal conflicts, and conjecture were mined further. The network plot showed diversified expressions of participants.
conclusionThere seems to be a requirement to prime HCWs by offering objective information beforehand and removing diffidence using a systematic approach addressing the psychology and prevalent partisan belief in similar circumstances in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.